Social Steven crowder demonetized

Ruprecht said:
It's going to depend on the legal framework they are responding to.
Their culpability to their advertisers is always going to be the deciding factor in terms of their responsibility over content though.
Earlier this year Disney, Nestle and others pulled out of advertising due to pedophiles commenting on children's videos on youtube.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't Section 230 provide YT some protection in this case?
 
spamking said:
Wouldn't Section 230 provide YT some protection in this case?
Click to expand...

If it was against legal prosecution maybe, but not against advertisers deciding to discontinue using their services.
In the end I think their solution was to disable comments on content specifically for children.
It was the "adpocalypse" that instigated all their content crackdowns and "brand safety" changes.
 
Ruprecht said:
If it was against legal prosecution maybe, but not against advertisers deciding to discontinue using their services.
Click to expand...

10-4 . . .

In the end I think their solution was to disable comments on content specifically for children.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about this issue . . . to me, that would've been a bigger "deal" than this Vox vs Crowder debacle.

It was the "adpocalypse" that instigated all their content crackdowns and "brand safety" changes.
Click to expand...

Hopefully it'll eventually get worked out . . . . I know some of us will never be happy about it though.
 
MMAisGod said:
Unlike some people, I don't care enough about these things to report others or fight to censor them. So I would rarely if ever report anyone for anything unless it was a real life crime. Some people are getting banned or demonetized for things done away from the platform lol.

If everyone had the same approach I do, I think people would generally be happier, or at worst less offended.
Click to expand...
If you don't report it then how can you expect YT to do something about it? It makes no sense to complain about this or that video not being moderated if you don't do anything to make that a reality.
 
spamking said:
As I understand the various summaries of 230 it was specifically passed to prevent overmoderation due to a fear of liability for content.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true but YT isn't moderating due to legal liability, its moderating due to the advertisers. So its not really relevant in the way you think it is.
Correct. Obvious exceptions would be child porn, etc.
Click to expand...
I assumed anything illegal wouldn't fly but even perfectly legal porn is kind of a nuisance at times.
Why wouldn't a system where you're able to select the categories you're interested in viewing and then adjust your individual account settings to hide videos based on being rated 1-5 stars work?
Click to expand...
Creates echo chambers and a lot of content could get targeted for down votes and basically hidden off the bat.
I never said they were legally obligated to do anything.

All I'm saying is that YOU should decide for yourself what content you choose to view. Not me. Not YT. Not Twitter.
Click to expand...
And I am saying there are many reasons as to why that isn't the case
 
Kafir-kun said:
Yes that is true but YT isn't moderating due to legal liability, its moderating due to the advertisers.
Click to expand...

Which is why I've said a few times that advertisers should be able to select who they support.

So its not really relevant in the way you think it is.
Click to expand...

How so? If YT is a platform it's relevant. If YT is a publisher not so much. Yet they're directly benefiting from both stances.

Creates echo chambers and a lot of content could get targeted for down votes and basically hidden off the bat.
Click to expand...

So? You still have the opportunity to view what you choose to view regardless.

And I am saying there are many reasons as to why that isn't the case
Click to expand...

Many reasons why what isn't the case? YT/Twitter deciding what "we" view?
 
MMAisGod said:
I don't care either way. That's the point. I'm not complaining, as again, I don't care. I find it petty to go the "what about them" route, and just ignore it or use another platform as a solution.

However, my level of care is irrelevant to noticing, or pointing out a blatant violation of the rules YT set. I find it unreasonable to believe not a single person once brought it to YT's attention, at all, over the years. Or someone to "get back" at the current bans and demonitizing. Surely you'd agree some individual out there was triggered enough to report one day. The decision YT makes with the information is theirs to do as they wish. But if that choice is to let certain people or groups bypass a ruleset they hold for others, it is a choice of bias either way.
Click to expand...
Virtually everyone who complains about this or that channel also violating YT's ToS or community guidelines also admits to me they don't report videos. I'd be surprised if TYT hasn't been reported at least once for political reasons but maybe one side just reports less and that is why the the other one is moderated more.

Or here's an unfortunately thought, maybe certain kinds of political content are just not as welcomed by the market incentives YT is operating under.
 
MMAisGod said:
Well yea, that's kind of the actual complaint? One group is likely reporting and trying to exile another significantly more than the reverse. My stance would be "who cares what that ignorant fool says", as I feel if everyone had this stance none of this would be an issue. If people are less offended by genocide denial, leaving people to believe what they want, like me, it will be reported less than the group going full blown protest mode to block out what they dislike or who they dislike for similar or less severe things. Makes sense.

What's more unwelcome than genocide denial? I think you had it right the first time. Complaints are met with resolutions, and complaints are being catered to at the moment.
Click to expand...
The thing is that is the system at work the way YT wants it. They don't want viewers to have that attitude and they want moderation, both from the community and in other ways such as the algorithms @Ruprecht mentioned earlier. The side complaining about double standards while refusing to report the objectionable content they find shouldn't be surprised to see that content isn't being moderated.
 
Yorkist said:
It is a private business, but it operates like a government enterprise.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't. It is a highly successful private business. So successful that people feel like they cannot live without it.

Stop punishing success.
 
#761 posts. Has socializum been defeated yet? I'm extremely pissed that the privaye company isn't giving my god his money. If only there was a way for me love him!!!!!!!!!!
 
MMAisGod said:
I think you're attributing an argument to me that I am not making. For the third time, I could care less what YT does with their business. However, unless you're stating "no one reports from one side ever all of 2019", which would be an interesting position, I don't see how it's not a double standard given the supposed standard set by YT and the community.

You say "they want moderation, both from the community and in other ways" etc. Yea, sounds good. So if 100 people report a willful genocide denier, but 215 people report another willful genocide denier, we will only hand down punishment towards one group but not the other because they complained louder or more often? I don't care for the reasoning behind their bias (more complaints from one side, advertisers, personal preferences, etc etc), but their bias is easily recognizable.
Click to expand...
Alright fair enough, I think we've both said what we have to say on the matter.
 
Looks like Facebook dinged Tomi Lahren . . .

 
Wonder how long Twitter will leave this up?

 
franklinstower said:
So now the governmet can step in on businesses that are not profitable? Where is that written anywhere?

Private bussiness.
Click to expand...

A broadcasting company that doesn't make a profit and pushes a political agenda sounds more like the BBC/CBC to me.

If Youtube were a business it would have adjusted it's business model to generate income.

Instead, they accept a profitless existence in the pursuit of pushing their various political agendas.

Hardly the behaviour of a private bussiess.

This is also an antritrust issue as Google essentially accepts that YouTube makes no money for them because it keeps competitors from being able to succesfully launch their own video services since competitors can't afford to lose money every month.

You are only defending youtube because they are demonitizing people you feel threatened by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,073
Messages
55,465,417
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top